Holding on to an old binary (such as an .exe on Windows) only guarantees that software continues to work on the version of the OS that it’s currently compatible with. It may not function on future versions.

Much of the software in the Linux repos doesn’t have an active developer, but it’s still available, and that’s a wonderful thing.

2. You Can Truly Own Your Software

On a similar note, I only feel that I own software when it’s free and open source.

For example, I buy proprietary baby bottles, and if the company goes out of business five years from now, those bottles will still work (though getting replacement nipples might be a problem). With software, a company going out of business often means an application goes away.

I don’t want to spend years using an app to perform a task (such as map my family tree) only to have to start over when the software disappears. Even having the option to export my data doesn’t always mean another program exists that can import it properly, if at all.

3. You Extend the Life of Hardware

I used to find new hardware exciting. I read magazines to keep up with the latest consoles and games. Via blogs, I read about new computers and software. I was excited to get my hands on my first e-reader, tablet, smartphone, and smartwatch. I planned out purchases months in advance and spent days or weeks obsessed with my new devices.

But it was only a matter of time before the cycle repeated itself. Laptops wore down. Tablets became outdated. Phones reached end of life. Each new form factor meant another piece of hardware to continuously replace.

Microsoft may make another version of Windows that requires expensive PC upgrades. Apple will decide not to support old MacBooks with the latest OS. Phone makers want you to replace your device rather than update it.

4. Income Isn’t a Factor

My parents gave me my first computer when I was in the eighth grade, a used laptop with a dead battery and a dial up modem. I had the freedom to do what I wanted on the machine, but without a job or a credit card (and my parents weren’t comfortable with me using theirs), I couldn’t buy software.

Even if I could, many common commercial programs were too expensive. We used Microsoft Office in school, but I found out buying a copy for home would cost nearly as much as my computer had. I heard of PhotoShop as a great way to edit images, but that wasn’t budget-friendly either.

It was during this time that I discovered free and open source software. I used AbiWord and LibreOffice to write a novel-length story in high school. GIMP was my tool of choice for creating covers and other art. Free software empowered me to express my creativity and develop skills that would benefit me in my adult life.

Knowing how to use a computer has become a necessary skill in today’s world. The opportunity to gain that experience shouldn’t be limited only to the people whose families can afford to pay for expensive commercial software.

5. You Can Trust What’s Going On

Using software requires more trust than most other “products.” When I write with pen and paper, I know there’s only one copy of what I create. The pen and the paper don’t have a connection to the Internet that sends data (identifiable or otherwise) to a company’s server. A paper planner isn’t using my calendar entries to learn about me. My clothes aren’t monitoring my weight and health to sell me ads.

With physical products, I have to trust that the manufacturer didn’t use dangerous materials or unethical business practices, but that’s usually where the risks end. Using proprietary, closed source software requires I trust that the developer isn’t doing anything with my data that I don’t approve. There’s no way to find out for myself.

Releasing an application’s source code involves an inherent degree of trust. You’re taking code you’ve written and sharing it with others. You’re putting your work out there for other people to inspect and criticize. But given what’s at stake, releasing the source code is also a big sign of respect. Thank you, free software developers, for treating your users with this kindness.

So, Should Software Be Free and Open Source?

The world is increasingly connected, and more of our data lives online.

This brings questions of control, privacy, ownership, and trust that we need to create answers for as we trust more of our lives to devices and remote servers. To me, free and open source software already offer a solution. What about you?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Anonymous

August 18, 2016 at 3:59 am

As a consumer, I believe I should have choices in the software I want to use. If I see adequate open source apps, great. If there are commercial apps that offer much more, I should be able to buy them to support continued development and product support. An example is Gimp vs. Photoshop/Lightroom. Is Gimp sufficient? Great; use it.

As a developer, I feel I should have the choice to focus on the full-time (or nearly so) development of my app. Oh wait! I need to feed my family; I need an income. Or, I could team up with a lot of others to develop a "free" app (open source) and let the road lead to wherever it goes.

The bottom line is that there needs to be both options available. Which, I think, is where we are today.

I agree, which is why I didn't title this "5 Reasons Why *All* Software Should Be Free and Open Source". Ultimately freedom means being able to make and use whichever software you want.

I would like to see the software ecosystem change in such a way that most default software is open source, and people who want a premium commercial app make the conscious decision to do so, rather than the other way around.

While the article was written from a Linux perspective, FOSS is also available on Windows and (sometimes) Android. My browser is Firefox (Windows & Android), my password manager is Keepass (Windows & Android), my Office Suite is LibreOffice (Windows), and my time devouring suite of games is Simon Tatham's Puzzle Collection (Android). I also have GIMP and Audacity but I rarely use them.

Yup, and I'm glad. That's the reason I was able to first try free software. I didn't make this explicit in the post, but my first computer ran Windows XP. I used free software on Windows for years before switching to Linux, and I was able to continue using many of my favorite apps (Firefox, AbiWord, OpenOffice, Pidgin, GIMP, etc.).

I agree with you on all points (especially on the 4th reason), but it's clearly written from a consumer perspective (to which I belong as well). Try producing a modern track (/song, whatever you call it) with Audacity only. Can be done. But it's a lot harder than with a paid software (Logic, FL, Ableton, Cubase, ProTools etc) and all other plug-ins and packs.

Who'd put countless hours of work on software development if they KNEW they weren't going to benefit financially? In my opinion, paid software fuels progress of software itself. And it's only because of the competition - everybody wants to make the best one so that they can earn money.

I know a lot of open-source apps (was a Fedora user for some time) work very well. But are they on the same level as paid ones are? Other point, would we see as many games?

You can go open source all you want. I know what it's like not having money to buy every single one you need, having to shop for new devices every 2 years because the old ones are obsolete... But it's progress.

Thanks for the feedback, and I'm glad to see you like the points I've put forward. Here's my response to some of the issues you've raised.

Have I approached this as a consumer? Yes and no. I'm a writer, and I find Linux to be an ideal tool for producing the kind of content I need. It has great apps for creating documents, formatting ebooks, drafting content for the web, and so on (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/improve-writing-linux-great-apps/). I make my living working from a Linux computer.

Many people put countless hours of work into creating software that they know they won't benefit from financially. There are thousands of open source apps already in existence, after all.

But I understand that's not the point you're getting at. I won't argue that competition among applications doesn't fuel innovation. It does. But it's not the only model out there. Say all software, for whatever reason, *had* to be open source. People would still want to produce music using their computers, and someone with the expertise would make it happen. More than likely, someone who wants to make a song would pay a developer to produce a tool for them, which is how much of the business world gets its software. Someone would likely open source one of these tools, or more work would go into a program like Audacity precisely because someone can't turn to a commercial alternative instead.

As for the difference in quality between paid and open source apps, that's really an app by app basis. Many Windows users flood their PCs with open source apps because they're some of the best options available without even knowing or caring about the development model. This includes apps like Firefox, VLC, Atom, GIMP, and LibreOffice. I personally prefer the experience I get using a PDF viewer on Linux than Windows or Chrome OS. The same is true with the file manager, text editor, image viewer, etc. As a working professional with the money to buy commercial software, I still go open source instead partially because I find the experience to be better.

To me, watching Windows 7 (which I liked) turn into 8 and 10 was not progress at all. Nor was having to replace my perfectly functional HTC One with a newer phone that was mostly the same, just to get updates. Having a smart watch become buggy in six months and need replacing when an old-fashioned watch can last years is a step back, not forward. In many ways, this is software and hardware designed to make money, not to improve the state of technology or our quality of life.

@Vladimir:
Open source software does not have to mean free of charge. You have to pay for Red Hat Enterprise Linux even though it is open source.

"paid software fuels progress of software itself."
If you define 'progress' as adding esoteric features that very few people use and useless eye candy. I would disagree with you on paid software fueling innovation. Paid software developers write programs they are told to write. They do not experiment, The do not try to see if program can do something better, quicker or more efficiently. Open source software developers, on the other hand, do experiment, do play 'what if'. Just look at the browsers. Firefox, Opera, Chrome had features that Microsoft has only recently incorporated into their newest browser.

"everybody wants to make the best one so that they can earn money."
No. When it comes to paid software, everybody wants to be first to the market with new features and fancy glitz so they can make money.

" The only real guarantee that an app will be available years from now is if it’s open source. If the source code is available, someone can keep the program alive after it eventually gets abandoned or undergoes drastic changes."

This is perhaps because many countries enforce the concept of intellectual property rights to information (like patents) suppressing competition. This monopolization of ideas occurs elsewhere too.

"With physical products, I have to trust that the manufacturer didn’t use dangerous materials or unethical business practices, "

This doesn't apply to software which may include malware and still have been produced unethically?

"With physical products, I have to trust that the manufacturer didn’t use dangerous materials or unethical business practices," definitely applies to software as well. I was making the point that with physical products, this is often where concerns end, whereas with software the concerns are just beginning.

Bertel both earned a college degree (in the humanities) and built a career using Linux-powered laptops. Now he uses his education and life experience to question the ethical decisions behind today's technology. He advocates the use of free software and believes computing should be accessible to all regardless of economic…